/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14746108
>There's nothing scientific about assuming things you can't prove

What sort of fucking nonsense is this? In a "conscious universe" thread? There is endless evidence for my arguments.

> you're sugar fire
>you're chemically no different than a meat car
> You serve the same purpose as fire.

All of these are 100% facts. Ironically, there is zero evidence for any sort of consciousness existing outside of complex biological life. When you condemn my arguments, yet support conscious universe arguments, you're saying "There's no science in assuming the falsehood of things you cannot disprove" Despite numerous logical proofs that heavily suggest that consciousness is confined entirely to complex biological organisms, that's not even important.

The sole argument in favor of conscious universe remains "There's no science in assuming the falsehood of things you cannot disprove", since there has been absolutely 0 evidence beyond the fantasies of humans.

There is no evidence for an infinite amount of things. We cannot disprove an infinite amount of things. Do we act as if these infinite amount of things are true because we cannot prove them? No. We only act based upon what we can prove, the population of what we cannot disprove is only consequential if we can prove it in the first place.

>"There's no science in assuming the falsehood of things you cannot disprove"
>look at this quote

"The fabric of the universe, the prima materia, is composed entirely of pure cross-dressing child-rapist clown energy, which cannot be detected by anyone, because it is impossible to cross-dress and rape enough children while dressed up like a clown to get the 100% super conscious and human-like universe to trust you enough to expose itself to you."

This argument has the exact same "evidence" to back it up as conscious universe arguments, so is it true? Find some hard evidence or fuck off.